BEE-L Archives

Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology

BEE-L@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Peter L Borst <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 30 Jan 2013 14:15:11 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (60 lines)
I have read with interest the piece you refer to. The conclusions regarding the divide between beekeepers and academia would be troubling except for the fact that the piece is filled with errors. I have worked in the bee industry since 1974 and have been employed at Cornell University since 1995, so I believe I am in a unique position of having knowledge of both communities. 

First, beekeepers have long been viewed with disdain by academia because they are a lawless bunch. For many decades they have complained about insecticides, all the while dumping a plethora of chemicals into their hives, many of which are untested, incorrectly applied and/or outright illegal. They place much more weight with what their buddies say and do, than any scientific research.

Second, CCD as a phenomenon, has never been defined. In 2006, some bees died and no one could figure out why. They still haven't figured it out, and in this void has appeared a myriad of possible causes ranging from plausible to ridiculous, including cell phone towers, co-evolving virus strains, and of course, neonics.

Third, there is a mountain of evidence that the correct use of neonics (not accidental overspray as occurred in Germany and quite likely in Canada) does NOT harm bees. Consider the following, published five years ago:

Canola is grown commercially mostly on the prairies in Canada. In 2008, 16.6 million acres (6.6 million ha) were planted and the acreage is expanding. There are 52,000 canola producers. Canada is the largest single producer of canola in the world.

Commercially grown canola is predominantly a prairie crop. It is so common that 80% of Canada’s honey crop is from canola. This amounts to 50 million lb per year of Grade No 1 white honey. 

Approximately 300,000 colonies harvest open pollinated canola. The expanding hybrid seed production industry, where farmers produce seed under contract to the seed companies, required 80,000 colonies in 2008 for pollination in southern Alberta.

Most canola seeds are now treated with systemic insecticides such as Gaucho® (imidacloprid), Poncho® (chlothianidin) or Helix® (thiamethoxan). Although there is an expressed concern by many beekeepers around the world about the use of systemics, the experience in Canada is that we have had 10 years of large scale use on canola with no observed ill effect.

Pollinating Hybrid Canola - the Southern Alberta Experience
Heather Clay, Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Honey Council, Calgary, AB

* * *

The experience in Great Britain and elsewhere is the same: hives and beekeepers thrive when placed on canola (oilseed rape), despite the presence of neonics, herbicides, and genetic modification. The problem with beekeeping in the USA and Europe is that we are dealing with a very sick animal. Pesticides could in fact be pushing them over the edge, but absent the pesticides, the bees DO NOT GET BETTER.

In the last decade, an increase in honey bee colony
losses have been reported in several European and
American countries (Gross 2007, 2008), including
Spain, where recent data from many apiarists, indicate
a loss close to 80% of beehives.

Spain is the European country with the highest number
of honey bee colonies (2.5 millions in 2009)

Our results demonstrate that the situation in Spain
is similar to that described in countries in other studies
but differs in the lack of imidacloprid residues.

Indeed, it seems that the generalized
honey bee colony loss in recent years is more
likely to be related to other causes such as varroosis
due to V. destructor

In our samples, the prevalence of fipronil was very low, and
imidacloprid (or metabolites) was not detected, suggesting
that those products or other agrotoxics commonly
used in Spain are not directly related with the
generalized reemergent problem of honey bee colony
loss detected since autumn 2004.

Overview of Pesticide Residues in Stored Pollen and Their
Potential Effect on Bee Colony (Apis mellifera) Losses in Spain
Journal of Economic Entomology, 103(6):1964-1971. 2010

             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html

Guidelines for posting to BEE-L can be found at:
http://honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm

ATOM RSS1 RSS2